What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Whateverist]

For me the beliefs I would look at are those involving the status of the bible, origins, the soul & afterlife, and the nature of God.  Here is what that would look like for me.

Regarding the bible, a reasonable Christian would have to accept the best scholarship regarding the origins of the text without regard to the denomination or belief status of the scholar.  It would also mean accepting that the proper way to read the bible is a reasonable topic for discussion, with all points of view accepted and without doctrinal dedication to a particular interpretation.  Those who believe the bible tells a Christian how to lead his life would be welcome to defend that position.  Likewise for those who think its chief use is allegorical or for those who think parts of it were literally inspired by God.  Every stance must be tolerated and defended, and none would enjoy authoritative standing.

Regarding origins, given what was already said about the bible, the beliefs a Christian could reasonably hold about creation would have to accord with the science surrounding the development and age of the earth as well as with our own evolution. They could hold that God was behind it in some unspecified way but that can't lead to conflicts with the science if their beliefs are to be deemed reasonable.

Oddly I think there is more room for Christians to hold what would strike us as lavishly speculative theories of what happens to a person's essence after death, since these wouldn't contradict anything essential about life as we know it.  But again to be reasonable, they would at least have to allow that another Christian is free to hold that talk of heaven, hell and souls is all figurative.  Talk of "true Christians" would have to be acknowledged to be unreasonable.

As for God, we should expect some Christians to see God as something inside, others as something out there and still others as something purely symbolic.  As with souls and an afterlife, any beliefs regarding the nature of God which doesn't contradict life as we know it, would be reasonable and insistence that any particular point of view should be accepted by all would be unreasonable - or else justified in a manner which doesn't claim an unearned authority.

It remains to be seen if that leaves enough for anyone to still find meaning and value in their Christian affiliation.  Naturally being considered to hold reasonable beliefs by the standards of non-Christians is probably of no concern to any Christians we know but hell - this exercise isn't for them anyhow.  (But theists should feel free to kibitz too.)

I read this an ask myself how does this differ from my very own core beliefs? Very little in the way I have approached God and the bible. Which is indeed how/why I have been able to reconcile so many different paradoxes that most can not see past.

Then I ask why is it that others do not see this in me.

While I know the answers could be very diverse I think the primary reason is, it is far easier to try and pin me as a bigoted person rather than someone unique or understand the differences between what I believe and those in whom you your self are trying to outline.

Well if that describes the way you see yourself then I'll have to take you off ignore and give you another look.  Maybe I was hasty.

[Huggy Bear]

After reading this thread it is most obvious that the atheist here have no idea what Christianity means. It's surprising how little the ones who claim they were Christians and then left the faith actually know or remember. This is why I've always challenged them to prove their claim and I will always maintain that challenge. You all do not have nor get the right to rewrite the Christian faith and whether you want to believe it or not God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan for mankind. It really is to bad you have glued those blinders over your eyes, it will be truly sad if you miss out on Paradise.

GC

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

*emphasis mine*

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

[drfuzzy]

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

*emphasis mine*

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

I simply made the point that I have attended services in dozens of Protestant churches, plus Anglican, and Catholic.  (And Unitarian, and I played for a Jewish service, and even an ecumenical all-faiths service . . . ).  When given the opportunity, someone, (preacher, choir member, deacon, etc.,) at every single one of the PROTESTANT denominations told me that their church had it right and all of the others had it wrong.  For some, this was an obvious attempt just to get me to join, for others, it was spoken with contempt and a description of WHAT they were doing that made them wrong.  Funny, not a single one mentioned that they were reading the wrong type of Bible.  The book wasn't the problem.

Oh, and I haven't asked the question in the Anglican and Catholic churches.  I know what they believe.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

I simply made the point that I have attended services in dozens of Protestant churches, plus Anglican, and Catholic.  (And Unitarian, and I played for a Jewish service, and even an ecumenical all-faiths service . . . ).  When given the opportunity, someone, (preacher, choir member, deacon, etc.,) at every single one of the PROTESTANT denominations told me that their church had it right and all of the others had it wrong.  For some, this was an obvious attempt just to get me to join, for others, it was spoken with contempt and a description of WHAT they were doing that made them wrong.  Funny, not a single one mentioned that they were reading the wrong type of Bible.  The book wasn't the problem.

Oh, and I haven't asked the question in the Anglican and Catholic churches.  I know what they believe.

You stated that ALL and I emphasize "all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.". They all clearly are not reading from the same book, and it's OBVIOUS that if one group has books added to their bible and another has books omitted, they cannot possibly end up at the same conclusion.

[drfuzzy]

I simply made the point that I have attended services in dozens of Protestant churches, plus Anglican, and Catholic.  (And Unitarian, and I played for a Jewish service, and even an ecumenical all-faiths service . . . ).  When given the opportunity, someone, (preacher, choir member, deacon, etc.,) at every single one of the PROTESTANT denominations told me that their church had it right and all of the others had it wrong.  For some, this was an obvious attempt just to get me to join, for others, it was spoken with contempt and a description of WHAT they were doing that made them wrong.  Funny, not a single one mentioned that they were reading the wrong type of Bible.  The book wasn't the problem.

Oh, and I haven't asked the question in the Anglican and Catholic churches.  I know what they believe.

You stated that ALL and I emphasize "all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.". They all clearly are not reading from the same book, and it's OBVIOUS that if one group has books added to their bible and another has books omitted, they cannot possibly end up at the same conclusion.

Let's try this again.  I was only talking about the Protestant denominations.  And not one person who made that statement said anything about the Bible, that was my observation.  You are deflecting from my main point, which is that there are many Protestant schisms and they all think that only THEIR church has it right.  And while it was not the point, most were either reading from the KJV or the NIV.  I doubt that most of these people were aware that the Apocrypha exists, but that's irrelevant to my point.

[Huggy Bear]

And people wonder why I "quote mine"...

For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.

 
*emphasis mine*

[drfuzzy]

And people wonder why I "quote mine"...

For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.

 
*emphasis mine*

Ah.  You're arguing MY semantics.  Yes, I consider the Bible to be the same book of fairy tales, no matter which translation, version, whether it contains the Apocrypha or not.  
Some of 'em just have a few more fairy tales than others.  Bible fans can argue that only THEIR version is the real one - which is all pretty silly, didn't we have some goofball here a year or so ago screaming that the KJV was the ONLY Bible?  lol   It's the Bible.  Which version/edition/translation YOU think is the only one - - who cares?   You seem to be making a huge distinction between book editions here, like that KJV-only loony.  And/or you're claiming that different versions have led to different sects.   Who cares?  I mean, they're all claiming to have the only REAL link to an imaginary creature that nobody has ever been able to prove exists.  And it's all based on VERSIONS of the same book.

[LadyForCamus]

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

*emphasis mine*

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

LOL.  That’s her whole point though, isn’t it? You would think that the book would be the same no matter which denomination you happen to prefer, especially considering it allegedly contains god’s unchanging, infallible Word. It’s not Fuzzy’s fault that Christians can’t even agree on what constitutes ‘The Bible’.

[vulcanlogician]

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

It may be more accurate to say that Protestants use a bible with books subtracted from it. Martin Luther removed several books from the OT canon. At no time did Catholics add any books. He also wanted to remove several books from the NT (like James and Revelation) but his followers at the time didn't support this revision, so he didn't end up taking them out. I like to point this out to Christians: your one source of inerrant truth is the way it is because of the politics of the past.

Also, where do you get that evangelicals "only have the new testament"? This is incorrect. I wouldn't think these are errors you'd make, Huggy. Am I misinterpreting your words here?

[The Grand Nudger]

The catholics added all the books, lol.